On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 29 April 2010 21:36, Graham Percival wrote:
>> That would already be handled by
>> { ...} * 4
>> which is much more intuitive than ;4
I hadn't even considered that: to me, '*' means altering durations, so
I'd expect such a syntax to wor
---
Documentation/notation/text.itely |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/notation/text.itely
b/Documentation/notation/text.itely
index d108520..93c4552 100644
--- a/Documentation/notation/text.itely
+++ b/Documentation/notation/text.itely
@@ -3
Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 10:04:42 schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
> { music expression } * 4
> instead of
> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
I don't think this is a good idea with this syntax: How would you explain to
a new user the difference between the following two:
{c1}*4
c1*4
or
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:41 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> ---
> Documentation/notation/text.itely | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/notation/text.itely
> b/Documentation/notation/text.itely
> index d108520..93c4552 100644
> --- a/Documenta
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 10:04:42 schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
>> { music expression } * 4
>> instead of
>> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
>
> I don't think this is a good idea with this syntax: How would you explain to
> a new user the difference betwe
Patrick McCarty writes:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:41 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> ---
>> Documentation/notation/text.itely | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks, applied.
I'm streamlining my patch posting processes. Y'all be begging me to
accept commit pri
Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 11:08:02 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> > Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 10:04:42 schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
> >> { music expression } * 4
> >> instead of
> >> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
> >
> > I don't think this is a good idea with
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 29 avr. 2010 à 20:27, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>
>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>> markup in the argu
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 11:08:02 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>> > Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 10:04:42 schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
>> >> { music expression } * 4
>> >> instead of
>> >> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
>> >
>> > I
Hi David,
> A musician will encounter multiplicators most likely in the context of
> { R1*20 }
Agreed.
> and that _is_ already strictly incompatible with the idea of a duration
> modification since it _repeats_ the rest mark for every measure.
I'm not sure that's how it works... I personally th
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> A musician will encounter multiplicators most likely in the context of
>> { R1*20 }
>
> Agreed.
>
>> and that _is_ already strictly incompatible with the idea of a duration
>> modification since it _repeats_ the rest mark for every measure.
>
> I'm not su
Hi David,
> For a real surprise, try
> \score { << R1*20 d' >> }
> as opposed to r1*20. It's not exactly related, but strange.
Why does this surprise you? If you think of R1*20 as a repetition -- as you
claim to -- then this should be exactly according to your expectations: the
whole-note MMR
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> For a real surprise, try
>> \score { << R1*20 d' >> }
>> as opposed to r1*20. It's not exactly related, but strange.
>
> Why does this surprise you? If you think of R1*20 as a repetition --
> as you claim to -- then this should be exactly according to yo
Kieren:
> > It's not obvious to me whether
> > c\chord #'(1 7)
> > should produce "c b" or "c bes". Musically speaking, I'd look at
> > the key signature; if it were c major, I would assume it meant
> > "c b" since "b" is the seventh note of the scale.
> >
> > This may be a problem for the numer
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea with this syntax: How would you explain to
> a new user the difference between the following two:
>
> {c1}*4
> c1*4
That's why I initially suggested using ':' instead of '*'.
Another possibility (but
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
wrote:
>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>
>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>> markup in the arguments. Anything else?
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
> wrote:
>>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>>
>>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>>> marku
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
> wrote:
>>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>>
>>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>>> marku
I've noticed that cross-references to unnumberedsubsec's
actually link to the section node one level up. For
example, in
NR 3.4.3 "Alternative output formats",
clicking on the link to
"Command line options for lilypond"
sends me to
Usage 1.2 "Command-line usage".
Then I have to click on the
Carl Sorensen wrote:
> I disagree with the idea that the simplest solution is to
> move the \relative outside the \repeat.
I've attached a new patch following your suggestions.
Okay to push?
- Mark
From 40270827b0ac9ee4500b36038ee9ca83178e6e71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Polesky
LGTM
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Polesky"
To: "Carl Sorensen" ; "Graham Percival"
Cc: "lilypond-devel"
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: PATCH: Doc: Clarify \relative inside \repeat issue.
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I disagree with the idea that the simple
A week ago, I asked "Does anybody have any other syntax changes
they want to propose?". This was horribly unclear, and I
apologize for completely giving the wrong impression.
I /meant/ to ask if there were any long-planned (small) syntax
changes that we all agreed on, but which I had previously v
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:26:21PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> > That's just it -- there isn't anybody to guide you gently into
> > that good night. The only clue I know about the IR is that it's
> > partly generated by scheme functions in scm/documentation*.
>
> I'll see wha
Looks good to me. As a matter of fact, I really like it.
Carl
On 4/30/10 10:46 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> I disagree with the idea that the simplest solution is to
>> move the \relative outside the \repeat.
>
> I've attached a new patch following your suggestions.
>
There's a @knownissues at the end of
NR 1.4.2 "Short repeats * Tremolo repeats"
that says:
"Cross-staff tremolos do not work well."
This comes immediately after a selected snippet that shows
just how well those cross-staff tremolos work (quite
nicely, in fact). Can we remove the @knownissues?
-
Incidentally, I already happened to have one of those in my patch series
where the consequences were all too bad.
Here goes: flex/bison files need, for lack of better alternatives, to be
edited in c++-mode in Emacs.
Unmatched double quotes throw all syntactic entities off terribly. So
I'd tend
26 matches
Mail list logo
